Talk:GROW (series)

Primary source concerns

I've just reverted this edit by Dgpop because neither of the tags seem appropriate to me. The two specific concerns were notability and an over-reliance on primary sources, so let's discuss these separately:

• Notability - This guideline suggests that significant coverage in multiple third party RSes is sufficient to establish a topic as generally notable. Currecntly in the article at hand we see this coverage in citations to a number of sources listed as reliable at WP:VG/RS including websites (Destructoid, Rock Paper Shotgun, Kotaku, Gamasutra, Game Set Watch, Indiegames, and the AV Club's Gameological Society), journals (PC Gamer and Wired), and newspapers (The Guardian and New York Times). Other RSes not cited also appear to cover the topic and could also be added. It seems apparent to me that the topic meets the general notability guideline.
• Over-reliance on primary sources - We should start by recognizing that although third-party coverage is preferred in general, first party coverage is allowed to some extent (per WP:ABOUTSELF) when the claim being sourced is on the topic of the claimant, when there can be no reasonable doubt as to the authenticity of the claim, when the claim is not unduly self-serving, and when the Wikipedia article is not primarily based on that source. In the article at hand we have the vast bulk of it (in fact all prose save two sentences in the history subsection) relying on third-party sources such as those listed above. There are many references to the series webpage (eyezmaze.com), but a close examination will show that they are nearly entirely used to source the list of titles in the series and that they are specifically used to verify the release dates. By my reading this is exactly the sort of neutral self-reporting that is allowed under ABOUTSELF. The authenticity of the URL as the true website for the series can be verified at any number of the RSes listed in the article.

Do these seem like reasonable interpretations of the guidelines and policies, Dgpop? Do you have additional concerns that you would like to see addressed? How can we best work toward improving the article? -Thibbs (talk) 03:55, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree with the above. The primary sources here are only being used to identify the games in the series and their release dates. When you eliminate those sources and the information they support, the rest of the article, which is several paragraphs of prose about the nature, development, and reception of the games, meets notability. There's no issues with sourcing here. --MASEM (t) 16:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on GROW (series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://newsletter.igda.org/sites/default/files/IGDA_Casual_Games_White_Paper_2008.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121022154411/http://kotaku.com/grow-cube to http://kotaku.com/grow-cube

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:26, 9 October 2017 (UTC)